Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LONGIN v. CROATIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Longin v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  In some other cases, however, no violation of Article 3 was found, as the restricted space in the sleeping facilities was compensated for by the freedom of movement enjoyed by the detainees during the daytime (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103-107, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  metre of personal space during his 35-day period of detention (see Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 41-49, 16 June 2005), and in the Mayzit case where the applicant was afforded less than 2 square metres during nine months of his detention (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005) as well as in Ananyev case where the applicants were afforded less than three square metres of personal space (see Ananyev and Others, § 148, cited above).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  In these circumstances, the cumulative effect of the applicant's confinement must have left the applicant with feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him (see Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 94-98, 12 March 2009).

• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  metre of personal space during his 35-day period of detention (see Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 41-49, 16 June 2005), and in the Mayzit case where the applicant was afforded less than 2 square metres during nine months of his detention (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005) as well as in Ananyev case where the applicants were afforded less than three square metres of personal space (see Ananyev and Others, § 148, cited above).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02

  NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  In some other cases, however, no violation of Article 3 was found, as the restricted space in the sleeping facilities was compensated for by the freedom of movement enjoyed by the detainees during the daytime (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103-107, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 22635/03

  SULEJMANOVIC c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  The Court, however, considers that the overcrowding of the detention cells in which the applicant had been detained cannot be taken in isolation and must be examined in the light of all the other physical conditions of his detention (see Sulejmanovic v. Italy, no. 22635/03, § 42, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 5711/10

  LALIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  The Court is aware of the necessity that such institutions, primarily designated for short periods of detentions, can have special freedom of movement regimes particularly concerning the remand prisoners, but that should not have any adverse effect on the prisoners who are serving longer sentences particularly where there is a restricted space in the sleeping facilities (see, mutatis mutandis, Lalic and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 5711/10, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  According to the Court's case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 96-98, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 66942/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 42550/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 26137/04

  BARTA v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 29597/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 4464/09

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA v. HUNGARY and 78 other applications

  On the other hand, even in cases where the inmates appeared to have at their disposal sufficient personal space and a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court noted other aspects of physical conditions of detention as being relevant for the assessment of compliance with Article 3 and found a violation of that provision since the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 84, 12 June 2008; and Trepashkin v. Russia, cited above, § 94), lack of outdoor exercise (see Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, §§ 60-61, 6 November 2012) and poor sanitary and hygiene conditions (see Jirsák v. the Czech Republic, no. 8968/08, §§ 64-73; Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 164-166).
• EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

  ULEMEK v. CROATIA and 5 other applications

  The 2011 report also noted that most complaints concerning the conditions of detention were made with regard to Zagreb Prison, and in 2012 the report referred to the issues of inadequate conditions of detention identified by the Court in the case of Longin v. Croatia (no. 49268/10, 6 November 2012) and the Constitutional Court in the case U-III-4182/2008 (see paragraph 45 above).

  Accordingly, in order to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies and in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity applicants are required, before bringing their complaints to the Court, to afford the Croatian Constitutional Court the opportunity of remedying their situation and addressing the issues they wish to bring before the Court (see Bučkal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 20, 3 April 2012; and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 36, 6 November 2012).".

  The Court stressed that only in combination with an effective use of the above-mentioned preventive remedy, leading to the acknowledgement of a breach of the applicant's rights and his or her removal from the inadequate conditions of detention, can the civil proceedings satisfy the requirements of effectiveness (see, for instance, Štitić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29660/03, 9 November 2006; Novak v. Croatia, no. 8883/04, § 34, 14 June 2007; Peša, cited above, § 81; Miljak v. Croatia (dec.), no. 66942/09, § 33, 7 February 2012, and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 44, 6 November 2012).

• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 40828/12

  MIRONOVAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  On the other hand, even in cases where the inmates appeared to have sufficient personal space at their disposal and where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court noted other aspects of physical conditions of detention as being relevant for the assessment of compliance with Article 3. It found a violation of that provision since the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 81 and 84, 12 June 2008) and a lack of outdoor exercise (see Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, §§ 60-61, 6 November 2012).

• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 71667/17

  KU? IC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In cases concerning Croatia, the Court has consistently held that in order to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, and in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, applicants are required, before bringing their complaints to the Court, to afford the Croatian Constitutional Court the opportunity of remedying their situation and addressing the issues they wish to bring before the Court (see, for example, Bučkal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 20, 3 April 2012; Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 36, 6 November 2012; and Muršić, cited above, § 81).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16

  NIKITIN v. ESTONIA and 5 other applications

  In contrast to length-of-proceedings complaints in which the applicant relies on preventive remedies, which in order to be effective, have to provide prompt relief to the claimant who is still being kept in inadequate conditions of detention (see Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 41, 6 November 2012), a claim for compensation does not require the same promptness, as it serves a different purpose.
• EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 13008/13

  KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In cases where a larger prison cell is at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate, a violation of Article 3 will be found only if the space factor would be coupled with other aspects of inappropriate physical conditions of detention related to, in particular, access to outdoor exercise, natural light or air, availability of ventilation, adequacy of heating arrangements, the possibility of using the toilet in private, and compliance with basic sanitary and hygienic requirements (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 149; Jirsák v. the Czech Republic, no. 8968/08, §§ 64-73, 5 April 2012; Culev v. Moldova, no. 60179/09, §§ 35-39, 17 April 2012; Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, §§ 59-61, 6 November 2012; Torreggiani and Others v. Italy, nos.
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 16179/14

  BUTRIN v. RUSSIA

  On the other hand, even in cases where inmates appeared to have sufficient personal space at their disposal and where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court noted other aspects of physical conditions of detention as being relevant for the assessment of compliance with Article 3. It found a violation of that provision, since the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 81 and 84, 12 June 2008) and a lack of outdoor exercise (see Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, §§ 60-61, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 49439/21

  HANZEVACKI v. CROATIA

  m of personal space throughout his stay, which lasted for seventy-five days (see paragraph 7 above; see also the Court's findings of a violation of Article 3 in respect of stays in Zagreb Prison in Ulemek, cited above, §§ 128-31, and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, §§ 60-61, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 33602/17

  GRUBIC v. CROATIA

  In view of the delays that had already been endured by the applicant at the time of submitting his application, the Court is of the view that he cannot be reproached from the perspective of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for not awaiting the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court (see Furman v. Slovenia and Austria, no. 16608/09, § 96, 5 February 2015, and, mutatis mutandis, Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 41, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  LONIC v. CROATIA

  However, only a complaint before the competent court entails judicial protection and is susceptible to a further appeal and subsequently a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 38 and 39 above; and Simunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011; Srbic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 4464/09, 21 June 2011; Pesa, cited above, §§ 78-80, 8 April 2010; Sebalj, cited above, §§ 173-77; and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 35, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 03.02.2026 - 57185/17

  O.H. AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 18.04.2024 - 32439/19

  RIOLLET ET AUTRES c. FRANCE et 2 autres affaires
• EGMR, 28.10.2021 - 52374/15

  BANCSÓK v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 21.05.2024 - 3646/17

  MAFALANI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 6813/12

  GEORGIOU ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  GOLUBAR v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 5901/13

  POZAIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 54872/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 37522/16

  VUKU? IC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 56787/16

  LADAN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2024 - 29926/20

  A.Z. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 33138/06

  PILCIC AGAINST CROATIA AND 3 OTHER CASES
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 29843/13

  JURIC v. CROATIA